Presenting new evidence in closing arguments?

In criminal cases, closing arguments cannot refer to any evidence not presented in the evidentiary phase. I don’t know how this might apply in civil cases or how strictly.

During her cross examination, and during her case in chief, Sarah did not address the issue of child support which might be owed by her. She did not address the income imputed to her by Brian’s counsel. She did not address the fact that by virtue of her exercising 0% custody, she is not contributing her fair share to the raising of the child.

However, in her closing, she argues against the calculations of her owed child support and presents citations for case law from the Dept of Revenue (??) and the Indiana Supreme Court. This is new evidence not entered during the trial. Brian and his attorney have no opportunity to argue against it or present counter-arguments from more persuasive authorities - such as Florida law.

Is the judge even allowed to consider this argument, or research her citations? Is Brian allowed a sur rebuttal to this limited issue since she’s brought it up? Any lawyers out there know how this will be handled?

‘I can’t pay child support so I shouldn’t have to. Former “husband” can pay alimony so he should have to.’ - Sarah’s money arguments